A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming

30 11 2015

 By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

To campaign for so-called man-made “global warming” or “climate change” in Paris—while grief and fear still prevail, pervade and permeate—is insensitive, inhumane, shameful and repulsive.  It is an affront to the memories of those who died or were injured in the attacks on that great city, to all Parisians who have suffered, to the French people, and to the world.[2]

It is cheap and crass politics at its worst.  No wonder a rising number of Americans and people around the world are rejecting government in general, and their own governments in particular.[3]  George Orwell foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.[4]

Barack Obama is among the world’s so-called “elites” whose criminal obsession and fanaticism with global warming are threats to civilized life on this planet.  In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.  So-called man-made “global warming” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.”

Terrorists roam France, and the global economy teeters closer to the abyss[5], yet the farcical meeting of misguided Lilliputians and charlatans occurs in Paris.  Even if all human beings and other animals were removed from the Earth, there would still be natural cycles of warming and cooling.  Our Earth has gone through such cycles  for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us and our offspring have left this planet.

It has been reported:

(1)  The “COP-21 climate deal in Paris spells [the] end of the fossil era,”

(2)  ”Much of the fossil industry will go into slow run-off while the new plutocrats will be masters of post-carbon technology,”

(3)  ”[T]he fossil fuel industry of coal, gas, and oil could forfeit $34 trillion in revenues over the next quarter century—a quarter of their income—if the Paris accord is followed by a series of tougher reviews every five years to force down the trajectory of CO2 emissions, as proposed by the United Nations and French officials hosting the talks,”

(4)  ”Most fossil companies would face [a] run-off unless they could reinvent themselves as 21st Century post-carbon leaders,” and

(5)  ”Such a scenario would imply the near extinction of the coal industry unless there is a big push for carbon capture and storage. It also implies a near total switch to electric cars, rendering the internal combustion engine obsolete.”[6]

This only tells part of the story with respect to the estimated $34 trillion swindle or transfer of wealth.[7]  A multitude of class-action lawsuits may spring up globally—against the oil, gas and coal industries, and others who would dare to challenge the “global warming” orthodoxy.  Stark and undemocratic intimidation and scare tactics have begun already, with much more draconian measures to follow.

The Obama presidency cannot end quickly enough.  Many Americans view him as a feckless naïf, and a tragic Shakespearean figure who may be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history.  His naïveté has been matched by his overarching narcissism; and he is more starry-eyed and “dangerous” than Jimmy Carter.[8]

His presidency is considered already by many Americans as a sad watershed in United States history—by blacks and whites alike.[9], Republicans, Independents and members of his own party.  His “global warming” escapade is consistent with that tragically tarnished legacy.  When the next president takes office, what Obama has done in Paris may be reversed; and the entire “global warming” swindle may come crashing down.

© 2015, Timothy D. Naegele


global warming swindle



[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass). He and his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, specialize in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see www.naegele.com and http://www.naegele.com/documents/TimothyD.NaegeleResume.pdf). He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University. He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g., www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles), and can be contacted directly at tdnaegele.associates@gmail.com; see also Google search: Timothy D. Naegele

Note: The author does not represent anyone or any entity on either side of the “global warming” or “climate change” debate.  The views expressed herein are strictly personal, and not motivated by any personal gain or the prospect thereof.

[2]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/we-are-all-parisians/ (“We Are All Parisians”)

[3]  See, e.g.https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/ (“Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It”); https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/justice-and-the-law-do-not-mix/ (“Justice And The Law Do Not Mix”); https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/the-united-states-department-of-injustice/ (“The United States Department of Injustice”)

[4]  See, e.g.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm (“Animal Farm”)

[5]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7614 (“Doomsday Clock For Global Market Crash Strikes One Minute To Midnight As Central Banks Lose Control“); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/global-chaos-and-helter-skelter/ (“Global Chaos And Helter Skelter”)

[6]  See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12021394/COP-21-climate-deal-in-Paris-spells-end-of-the-fossil-era.html (“COP-21 climate deal in Paris spells end of the fossil era”)

[7]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7771 (“The Flat Earth Society, Environmental Nazis Are At It Again, Bigtime”)

[8]  See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/ (“Is Barack Obama A Racist?”)

[9]  See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/edward-w-brooke-is-dead/#comment-7434 (“Disappointment In Obama Leads Some Blacks To Ask Whether Voting Is Worth It“)



45 responses

30 11 2015

You are free to have your opinion on Obama, but why do you care if we ditch fossil fuels for alternative power sources? You’re for the sanctions on Russia and you’ve enjoyed how their economy has dilapidated, so why again do you feel the need to subjugate Obama because he supports an end to oil dependence?

It seems like a conflict of interest. The only people who are upset at a possible switch to alternative energy are people who are living off their mineral rights.


1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.

First, the United States is the dominant energy producer in the world today, and essentially energy independent. With the Middle East imploding, and far far worse yet to come there, a whole series of markets will open up for our energy products (e.g., China, Europe). In turn, this will produce American jobs and buoy our economy, in the face of economic “headwinds” that may devastate other parts of the world.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7614 (“Doomsday Clock For Global Market Crash Strikes One Minute To Midnight As Central Banks Lose Control“)

Second, with Putin and Russia imploding, the markets for our energy products will only increase. Barack Obama cares nothing about any of this. Indeed, for him to take any credit at all for our energy “boom” is ludicrous. He has fought it every step of the way, including his consistent opposition to the Keystone Pipeline.

Third, if you just read one set of comments, and all of the articles cited there, you will see that the science about “global warming” is settled: it is a total hoax, and simply wealth redistribution . . . to the tune of $34 trillion or more.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7771 (“The Flat Earth Society, Environmental Nazis Are At It Again, Bigtime”); see also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12025836/Paris-climate-conference-10-reasons-why-we-shouldnt-worry-about-man-made-global-warming.html (“Paris climate conference: 10 reasons why we shouldn’t worry about ‘man-made’ global warming”)

Fourth, Obama is a total fraud. If Americans had bothered to read and comprehend his core beliefs as set forth in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” they would not have elected him, or so I believe. Our great nation is polarized today because of him. He is a divider, not a uniter. He does not share American values.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist/

With all due respect, your last paragraph is not worthy of a response.

Liked by 1 person

24 11 2016

Excellent article/post. I am a scientist and follower of the Global Warming/Climate Change/Alternative Energy nonsense targeted at us and the rest of the world by the ruling class. The majority of predictive climate changes described by the media are fabrications and/or partial comments taken out of context. They are the only response Progressives can muster as the data contradicts them at all turns. I commend you for the time you took to prepare this post, and have only one request: Please find a way to get this information, and your opinions, to the President-Elect. Mr. Trump. He and his advisers need to know this, and welcome these data. Thank you.

Liked by 1 person

24 11 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your kind words and other comments.

I agree with your conclusions completely, and encourage you to read all of the comments beneath the article above.

Also, there is nothing “progressive” about the Left.

It is my belief that the President-elect and his new administration will scuttle the “global warming” pact. Like the TPP, without American support, it will die a natural death. 🙂


24 11 2016

I agree about the Progressives, i.e. they are not progressive at al! I made my suggestion about Trump based on my almost 3 years in the Executive Office of the President in Washington (Nixon). I know how difficult it is to not only get, but maintain the attention of a President, and/or his staff. Your experience – far more current than mine – would seem to be important relative to this. Just a thought!

Liked by 1 person

24 11 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again.

I believe the President-elect and his key staff members (e.g., Kellyanne Conway) are riveted on a few issues, like lasers; and the hoax of so-called man-made “global warming”—and the estimated $34 trillion wealth transfer—is one of them.

The President-elect has criticized the use of Air Force One continually, as an antiquated, fuel-guzzling albatross. He outfitted “Trump One” with up-to-date Rolls Royce engines (see, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/boycott-the-gop-and-ignore-foreign-naysayers/#comment-8307 (“Trump’s Plane And Pilot”)); and the replacement White House planes are in the pipeline already.

At best, he is a skeptic of man-made climate change—if not an outright denier. However, he does not believe in gross pollution of the atmosphere, inter alia, which is what happened when Obama and other world “leaders” assembled in Paris right after the tragic killings there.

In my article above and comments beneath it, I have discussed the farce that the Paris conference represented. The President-elect and his key staff members are well aware of this.

Liked by 1 person

1 12 2015

You, like other advocates of alternatives like wind and solar, fail to recognize that those technologies are not possible without fossil fuels, from cradle to grave. What energy source do you propose to power the machinery required to mine the raw materials needed for their manufacture, transportation, manufacturing, construction, and decommisioning? Wind and solar can not supply sufficiently reliable energy that can be used build more turbines and solar panels along with all the components required for their construction and operation, plus the fossil fuel required to back up wind and solar for those times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.


1 12 2015

This is the first article Title I ever read wherein all is required is to scroll right to the Comments section and tell you are absolutely and precisely correct.

I’ll read the finer points later. But the end will be the same result. We are being governed by a world of criminals and the only just punishment would be to pack them all into a 747 jumbo and strap a couple of Atlas rocket boosters to its side and point it to Mars. They’ll have a great and robust discussion about climate change en route.

Liked by 1 person

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you as always.

Perhaps Elon Musk will “coordinate” their travel, and join them. 🙂

Liked by 1 person

1 12 2015
Richard Hameroff

Excellent post Timothy. Spot on as usual.. How this criminal has stayed in office without impeachment is one of the world’s greatest mysteries.


Liked by 1 person

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Rick, as always.

After trying to impeach Bill Clinton—and succeeding in the House, but failing in the Senate—the GOP became very “gun shy” and reticent.

Also, they did not have the stomach to impeach America’s “first black president,” regardless of what he did.

He is probably “Teflon-coated” during the balance of his presidency; and he knows this, and will use it to his advantage.


1 12 2015

Well Richard. ..
…they programmed him into position….and they will program him out;..once they’re done with him destroying the infastructure.
If you are not a praying man…this might be your cue to start.



1 12 2015
Richard Hameroff

I suppose that was a rhetorical question I posed. I believe that he indeed is trying, and succeeding, in dismantling the American way of life. The family unit has fallen victim, because it was targeted. Race relations are at 1960s status, or worse because Obama wanted it this way. The economy is hanging on by a bubble and a thread, and Obama continues his relentless pursuit of his ridiculous Green initiative. The list of atrocities committed by this administration goes on and on…

Timothy, as much as I despise Obama, obviously, he is not the only one to blame. The liberal media, as well as the Republicans seem to enable him.. Surely, there must have been something that could have been done to shut him down.. Why haven’t they? What is the true evil behind this man? Is this indeed a conspiracy? And if so, whom is truly behind it??

Liked by 1 person

1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Rick.

Just as there is a “Perfect Storm” gathering with respect to global economic conditions, so too we may be witnessing a “Perfect Storm” with respect to the breakdown of government at all levels—and the belief in, and respect for government.

It is happening with regard to our judiciary, which is truly corrupt and lawless. It is happening in Washington, as always. It is pervasive. If—or perhaps when—the global economic storm hits with a vengeance, it may be truly chaotic.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/global-chaos-and-helter-skelter/ (“Global Chaos And Helter Skelter”)

The only thing worse would be an EMP Attack on America.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/ (“EMP Attack: Only 30 Million Americans Survive”)

Yes, this is doom and gloom; and I believe in our great nation and all Americans to my very core.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/america-a-rich-tapestry-of-life/ (“America: A Rich Tapestry Of Life”)


1 12 2015

So,at this point, what do you think the future holds?

And on another topic,how do you feel about the Trump phenomenon, and inevitability of him becoming the nominee? Surely,he is a byproduct of Americas disgust for the establishment. Nevertheless, very real.


1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

It is anyone’s guess. However, the global economy is not in good shape, and the worst is yet to come.

I like Trump and will vote for him. He may become America’s next president.

Hillary Clinton may self-destruct.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-7185 (“Clinton Fatigue”)

Will she become America’s first lesbian president?


1 12 2015

“Will she become America’s first lesbian president?”

Ewww, I certainly hope not.She is another criminal, along with Slick Willy.. Personally, I think Obama will slowly release damning information, and ultimately tank her allowing prosecution by the AG.
I have good friends that are liberals, and they are seriously considering Trump, as would I. Trump definitely was poking fun at that disabled reporter, but I can’t bring myself around to be upset at at him for that, or any other of the over the top things he has said.. I actually like the unfiltered humanity, that pours out of that man.. I do support him, but Ted Cruz would be my second choice, or a wonderful VP.

Some say Biden is waiting on the sidelines,ready to step in. I hope that is the case, because that would make it easier for any Republican nominee to win..


1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

You may be correct that she will be prosecuted.

See http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261582-fbi-chief-is-wild-card-for-clinton (“FBI chief is wild card for Clinton”)

If so, you are right: Biden might jump in.


1 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

Marie Antoinette’s Merry Band Of Elitist Warmers [UPDATED]

Warmers Dine On Haute Cuisine

It is altogether fitting and proper that Barack Obama and his fellow “global warmers” would dine lavishly in Paris on their taxpayers’ monies, just as Marie Antoinette was the quintessential representative of class conflict and western decadence.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, they will share similar fates—which, too, might be fitting and proper . . . inasmuch as Obama and his fellow warmers have embarked on the greatest wealth redistribution scheme in human history, to the tune of $34 trillion or more.

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/11/30/when-in-paris-president-obama-has-a-working-dinner-at-three-star-eatery/; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette#Trial_and_execution_.2814.E2.80.9316_October_1793.29 and http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2015/12/01/20151201_012508.htm and http://www.wsj.com/articles/well-always-have-the-illusions-of-paris-1449015377 (“The climate talks will have zero impact on global temperatures”—”[N]othing that emerges from Paris will have a discernible effect on world temperatures”) and http://www.dickmorris.com/the-climate-change-solution-obama-refuses-to-take-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/ (“[The United States is] the world capital of natural gas”) and http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud (“James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks ‘a fraud'”) and http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-climate-of-conformity-1450048095 (“Paris Climate of Conformity”—”[I]f climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it”—”Mr. Obama plans to use Paris as a stick to beat Republicans even as he ducks a vote in Congress”) and http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article50172810.html (“Report: Price of Obama getaways $70 million so far, and counting”); but see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12065274/OPEC-faces-a-mortal-threat-from-electric-cars.html (“Opec faces a mortal threat from electric cars“) and http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-exxon-global-warming-20160120-story.html (“California to investigate whether Exxon Mobil lied about climate-change risks“) and http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-snow-job-1453664732 (“The Climate Snow Job“)

For those who suggest that the world’s “scientific community” is fully onboard in supporting “global warming,” this is utter nonsense and psychobabble.

The issue is not about the facts. It is a pure wealth redistribution effort on a mind-boggling scale. Once one realizes that, it all makes perfect sense why this is being done.

The issue is M-O-N-E-Y, not science.

Scientists are “whores” who are bought and sold each and every day, just like lawyers and other so-called “professionals.” They are intimidated and ostracized if they do not get fully behind the “global warming” hoax (e.g., losing their grant monies, reputations).

Because there is at least $34 trillion at stake, these individuals are corrupted in the most insidious and unprecedented ways, yet they have the gall to profess that they are pure as the driven snow.

. . .

When the next American president takes office, what Barack Obama has done in Paris may be reversed; and the entire “global warming” swindle may come crashing down.

Indeed, on the first day in office, much of what Obama has done may be undone, inter alia, by reason of executive orders and the like.

Obama’s legacy may be “fleeting” at best, or non-existent.

Also, none of the countries that participated in the Paris conference have factored in the effects—much less the full effects—of (1) terrorist activities globally; (2) the immigration issue that is tearing Europe apart; (3) the implosion that is taking place in the Middle East, with much worse yet to come; or (4) the coming worldwide economic storm—which will make the entire “global warming” debate nothing more than an irrelevant sideshow, blip and footnote in history.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-economic-tsunami-continues-its-relentless-and-unforgiving-advance-globally/#comment-7614 (“Doomsday Clock For Global Market Crash Strikes One Minute To Midnight As Central Banks Lose Control“)

. . .

Again, the Paris accord is all about money and the accretion of power, and wealth redistribution, not about science.

Science is merely used as a “cover.”

This is a fulfillment of George Orwell’s foreboding as set forth in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

. . .

It is amazing how so many “warmer” wackos come out for a discussion like this. They are like a pack of rabid animals.


12 12 2015
Timothy D. Naegele

The Truth About Global Warming [UPDATED]

Flat Earth

Since the so-called “Paris Agreement” has been adopted, the following facts need to be trumpeted far and wide:

It is not hyperbole to say that man-made “global warming” is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated since our planet was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, and Man set foot on the Earth.

It is a wealth redistribution scheme in the amount of $34 trillion or more, and accretion of power by the “warmer” elites—which would make Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and other tyrants in history blanch. Never in their wildest dreams did they contemplate such power.

George Orwell foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals. Without knowing it precisely, he described the “climate talks” in Paris.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/ (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming”)

So-called man-made “global warming” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.”

Even if all human beings and other animals were removed from the planet, there would still be natural cycles of warming and cooling. Our Earth has gone through such cycles for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us—and our inheritors—have left this planet.

For those who suggest that the world’s “scientific community” is fully onboard in supporting “global warming,” this is utter nonsense and psychobabble. In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

When the next American president takes office, what Barack Obama has done may be reversed; and the entire man-made “global warming” swindle may come crashing down.

Also, none of the countries that participated in the Paris conference have factored in the full effects of (1) terrorist activities globally; (2) the immigration issue that is tearing Europe apart; (3) the implosion that is taking place in the Middle East, with much worse yet to come; or (4) the coming worldwide economic storm—which will make the entire “global warming” debate nothing more than an irrelevant sideshow, blip and footnote in history.

Please do so.


1 02 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Poll: 91 Percent Of Americans Are Not Worried About Global Warming [UPDATED]

Global warming swindle

Michael Bastasch has reported for the Daily Caller:

As Iowans prepare to vote for presidential candidates, a new poll has surfaced showing once again the vast majority of Americans don’t rank global warming as the most serious issue facing the country.

A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern. Only Saudi Arabians were less concerned about global warming at 5.7 percent. The biggest concern for Americans was global terrorism — 28 percent of Americans polled listed this as their top issue.

Despite a big PR push by President Barack Obama to tout his administration’s global warming agenda, most Americans have been unconvinced it’s the country’s most pressing issue. A Fox News poll from November found only 3 percent of Americans list global warming as their top concern.

The Fox poll came out just before Obama met other world leaders in Paris to kick off another round of negotiations for an international treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions. After weeks of haggling, United Nations delegates agreed to non-binding emissions cuts.

Then, government scientists declared 2015 the warmest year on record. This news only emboldened politicians and environmental activists who want to build public support for more regulations on fossil fuels.

“In Paris, the entire world acted as one by agreeing to a universal climate accord that set an expiration date on fossil fuels–but now we must pick up the pace,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, fossil fuel corporations are doing everything they can to hang on to their profits as long as possible,” Brune said. “Largely as a result, if one of the leading Republican candidates were to be elected President of the United States, they would be the only head of state on earth to oppose global climate action.”

But Brune’s insistence that Republican lawmakers and corporations are responsible for keeping the American public ignorant of the dangers of global warming doesn’t seem to be backed up by the polling data.

Polls have consistently shown global warming never ranks high on the American public’s radar. A CNN poll from January 2015 found that 57 percent of Americans did not expect global warming to threaten their way of life.

“Meanwhile, only 50 percent of Americans believe global warming is caused by man-made emissions, while 23 percent say it’s caused by natural changes and 26 percent say it isn’t a proven fact,” CNN reported.

A Gallup poll from March 2015 found Americans’ concern about global warming fell to the same level it was in 1989. Global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns — only 32 percent said they worried about it a “great deal.”

“Importantly, even as global warming has received greater attention as an environmental problem from politicians and the media in recent years, Americans’ worry about it is no higher now than when Gallup first asked about it in 1989,” Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones wrote.

See http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/poll-91-of-americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/ (emphasis added); see also http://iceagenow.info/record-cold-antarctica/ (“Record cold in Antarctica“)

Again, it is not hyperbole to say that so-called man-made “global warming”—or “climate change,” or “The Great Green Con”—is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated since our planet was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, and Man set foot on the Earth.

It is a wealth redistribution scheme in the amount of $34 trillion or more, and accretion of power by the “warmer” elites. In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

Even if all human beings and other animals were removed from the planet, there would still be natural cycles of warming and cooling. Our Earth has gone through such cycles for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us—and our inheritors—have left this planet.

. . .

However, it has been reported that the totally corrupt Obama administration has “discussed” the possibility of taking civil action against “climate change” deniers. The fascist Obama-ites should be indicted by the next administration, as soon as they leave office.

See http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/ (“Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has ‘discussed’ taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for ‘denying’ the ‘threat of carbon emissions’ when it comes to climate change”)


7 06 2016
Ron Michaels

More than a dozen states’ Attorneys General announced in the first week of June, 2016, that they will pursue legal actions against any corporation denying the Global Warming issue. This cabal of legal eagles stressed that the penalties to companies identified as Global Warming “deniers” will be harsh. Are citizens next in line?

On You Tube, “George Carlin on global warming” is a respite. A little “time out” from a nightmare that seems to have no end.

It frightens me when politicians say that everything Obama has done will be repealed on the first day of a new presidency. Can’t we keep that a secret? Is it too late? Does he know? The only way to prevent that from happening is for him to stick around. Yet, everyone seems to believe that Obama is leaving when his term is over. Really?


7 06 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ron, for your comments.

Yes, I am well aware of the AG’s threats and actions.

Regarding Obama’s future, I have believed for some time that he will be “angling” for another job when he leaves office, possibly with the UN.

Time will tell.


3 09 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

The Global Warming Swindle Continues As The Failed Obama Presidency Sputters To An End

Global warming swindle

The Wall Street Journal has reported:

U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday outlined new plans for expanding their joint efforts on climate change, showcasing one of the few areas of agreement in an otherwise tense relationship between the two leaders.

U.S. officials detailed the agreement reached by Messrs. Obama and Xi ahead of what is likely to be their final meeting before a new president enters the White House in January.

The new steps include formal adoption by both the U.S. and China of the international climate-change agreement reached in Paris in December 2015, as well as a road map for achieving emissions reductions in commercial aircraft and for phasing out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, a potent group of gases that are linked to climate change but aren’t covered by the Paris agreement.

The moves cap three years of efforts by Messrs. Obama and Xi to advance climate-change initiatives, following their first meeting as presidents in 2013.

The White House has touted the climate cooperation as a vital form of leadership the two biggest economies have sought to demonstrate for the rest of the world, where developed and developing countries often are at odds. The administration has given a high priority to climate collaboration with Beijing at a time when the two countries have struggled to see eye-to-eye on other economic issues, such as trade, investment rules and exchange rates. The countries have also faced tensions over military affairs and cybersecurity.

Brian Deese, a senior White House adviser, said that the U.S. and China have come “full circle” on climate change with the Paris agreement announcement.

The durability of the U.S. commitments largely hinge on November’s presidential election. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump have taken opposite positions on climate change.

Mrs. Clinton has said she would continue Mr. Obama’s climate-change agenda. Mr. Trump has promised to roll back Mr. Obama’s climate-change measures, questioning the scientific findings behind them.

The formal adoption of the climate-change agreement by the U.S. and China is designed to encourage other nations to formally adopt the Paris pact, helping it enter into force as early as this year, Mr. Deese said, noting that, together, the two countries represent roughly 38% of the world’s emissions.

U.S. negotiators pressed hard last year to structure the Paris agreement in such a way that the countries’ individual targets for greenhouse-gas emissions after 2020 wouldn’t be binding. Any agreement with legally binding targets and the threat of international sanctions would have required the approval of the Republican-controlled Congress, officials said.

Despite criticism from the European Union and other countries that wanted binding targets, the final Paris deal adopted a looser mechanism that requires countries to issue targets and disclose their progress along the way, with the aim of using peer pressure and world-wide attention to win compliance.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from the coal-producing state of Kentucky, and other GOP lawmakers have attacked Mr. Obama for pursuing the Paris deal without consulting Congress. Democratic lawmakers largely back the deal.

“With respect to the legal form of the agreement, the United States has a long and well-established process for approving executive agreements, that is, a legal form which is distinct from treaties, which are approved through the advice and consent process in the Senate,” Mr. Deese said.

The U.S. and China also expressed support for a prospective deal this year on limited international aircraft emissions through the International Civil Aviation Organization, a branch of the United Nations which is drafting a global standard for airline carbon emissions.

Emissions from aircraft represent about 2% of total global carbon emissions, and the U.S. is the largest contributor to global aviation greenhouse gases, according to federal data.

The two countries agreed as well to support negotiations this year to freeze and phase down the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons, powerful greenhouse gases used as refrigerants in place of chlorofluorocarbons, which were blamed for their major role in depleting the ozone layer. The HFC deal would be an amendment to a pact known as the Montreal Protocol, which entered into force in 1989.

Environmental advocates hailed the U.S.-Chinese agreement, saying a once unimaginable area of cooperation had become the brightest spot in the relationship between the two countries.

“When the two largest emitters lock arms to solve climate change, that is when you know we are on the right track,” said David Waskow, international climate director for the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank in Washington. ”Never before have these two countries worked so closely together to address a global challenge.”

Meanwhile, there was some tension upon the Americans’ arrival here on Saturday, as Chinese officials placed some restrictions on the press corps traveling with Mr. Obama.

See http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-china-agree-on-implementing-paris-climate-change-pact-1472896645 (“U.S., China Agree on Implementing Paris Climate-Change Pact“) (emphasis added)

As stated in my article above, “A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming”:

George Orwell foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

Barack Obama is among the world’s so-called “elites” whose criminal obsession and fanaticism with global warming are threats to civilized life on this planet. In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too. So-called man-made “global warming” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.”

Terrorists roam France, and the global economy teeters closer to the abyss, yet the farcical meeting of misguided Lilliputians and charlatans occurs in Paris. Even if all human beings and other animals were removed from the Earth, there would still be natural cycles of warming and cooling. Our Earth has gone through such cycles for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us and our offspring have left this planet.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/ (emphasis in original)

This is another lawless act by Barack Obama as his failed presidency ends, which must be undone on Day One of the Trump presidency.

In addition to indicting Hillary Clinton, ending Obamacare and reversing countless other executive orders, this “climate change” swindle must end abruptly and unceremoniously.

All treaties must receive Senate approval. The failed Obama never bothered.

Also, man-made “global warming” is a hoax and a figment of the imagination of the far-Left aka “environmental Nazis.”

This is a $34 trillion swindle or wealth transfer that must not stand. It is criminal, and certainly consistent with Hillary Clinton’s criminality.


4 09 2016
Ron Michaels

9/2/16 A group of highly respected scientists recently assembled and agreed with your contention that “global warming” is a fraud. It’s reminiscent of the hysteria from the administration and its followers over what they call “Assault Rifles” and the need to ban them and confiscate those in circulation.

The FBI’s and CDC’s recent Report on Gun Deaths states, “Those who use the words, ‘Assault Rifles’ are using the wrong term.” Rifles available today are merely target rifles and hunting rifles decorated to look military but they have absolutely no military capabilities.” This eye-opening report also states that of all deaths where firearms are involved, rifles are only present in 2%.

The report further emphasizes that almost ALL deaths involving firearms — 99.4% — are attributable to only three causes: suicides represent more than 60% of all firearms deaths; black-on-black murders (the CDC’s term) account for more than 30% of all deaths by firearms; and domestic violence represents almost 4% of the rest. These numbers strongly suggest that there are few possibilities for firearms to be even remotely as ominous as the administration continues to suggest.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another Government Agency, lists all causes of death in the United States each year and ranks them based on total number of deaths precipitated by each cause. Firearms are ranked as the 107th greatest cause of death. Automobile accidents cause more deaths than all firearms combined. The flu and the measles, and 106 other causes of death, EACH kill more people every year than all the deaths caused by all firearms COMBINED.

The FBI and CDC also report that “mass shootings” are extremely rare. The FBI will not use the label, “mass shooting” unless there are at least four (4) people who lose their lives in each “mass” event. The FBI reports that when a weapon of any kind and any caliber is fired, even though there may be no death, no injury, and no damage, the missfire still is listed as a “mass shooting” by the White House and the Justice Department and will appear in the nationally reported tallys of “mass shootings.”

This type of behavior, these mischaracterizations of the truth by this administration, are malevolent manifestations of the dedication of this president and his appointees to confiscate personal weapons of our citizens and destroy this country. I don’t believe he will leave. If Hillary is unable to serve, it is my judgment that POTUS will simply lock the doors in the White House and challenge everybody to try to dislodge him. I hope I’m wrong.

Liked by 1 person

4 09 2016
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ron, for you comments.

I agree with them, except for the last two sentences. I believe he will leave, without any problems.

While he is lawless in many respects, I do not believe he is prepared to invoke a constitutional crisis by overstaying his term in office.

With respect to guns, one of my other articles (and the comments beneath it) mirrors your comments.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/abortions-and-autos-kill-more-in-america-than-guns/ (“Abortions And Autos Kill More In America Than Guns”)


2 06 2017

Love this guy..


2 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks, Rick. 🙂


6 02 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

World Leaders Duped By Manipulated Global Warming Data

Global warming swindle

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.

Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.

Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.

However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.

The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.

One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on skeptics.

Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’

ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’

Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.

The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.

This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.

In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.

This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.

However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.

Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.

Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.

Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.

President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.

President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.

‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’

He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.

Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’

Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’

It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.

Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’

He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.

As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.

Dr John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as this paper reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.

Both scandals suggest a lack of transparency and, according to Dr Bates, a failure to observe proper ethical standards.

Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified.

Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.

Has there been an unexpected pause in global warming? If so, is the world less sensitive to carbon dioxide than climate computer models suggest?

And does this mean that truly dangerous global warming is less imminent, and that politicians’ repeated calls for immediate ‘urgent action’ to curb emissions are exaggerated?

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html (“Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data“) (emphasis added; charts and video omitted)

So-called man-made “global warming” or “climate change” is a hoax and “The Great Green Con.” It is a $34 trillion swindle or transfer of wealth.

In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

Our Earth has gone through such cycles for millions of years, which will continue long after all of us and our offspring have left this planet.


28 03 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Trump Signs Order Sweeping Away Obama-Era Climate Policies

Global warming swindle

Reuters has reported:

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday to undo a slew of Obama-era climate change regulations that his administration says is hobbling oil drillers and coal miners, a move environmental groups have vowed to take to court.

The decree’s main target is former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan that required states to slash carbon emissions from power plants – a critical element in helping the United States meet its commitments to a global climate change accord reached by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015.

The so-called “Energy Independence” order also reverses a ban on coal leasing on federal lands, undoes rules to curb methane emissions from oil and gas production, and reduces the weight of climate change and carbon emissions in policy and infrastructure permitting decisions.

“I am taking historic steps to lift restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion, and to cancel job-killing regulations,” Trump said at the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters, speaking on a stage lined with coal miners.

The wide-ranging order is the boldest yet in Trump’s broader push to cut environmental regulation to revive the drilling and mining industries, a promise he made repeatedly during the presidential campaign. But energy analysts and executives have questioned whether the moves will have a big effect on their industries, and environmentalists have called them reckless.

“I cannot tell you how many jobs the executive order is going to create but I can tell you that it provides confidence in this administration’s commitment to the coal industry,” Kentucky Coal Association president Tyler White told Reuters.

Trump signed the order with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Vice President Mike Pence by his side.

U.S. presidents have aimed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil since the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, which triggered soaring prices. But the United States still imports about 7.9 million barrels of crude oil a day, almost enough meet total oil demand in Japan and India combined.

While Trump’s administration has said reducing environmental regulation will create jobs, some green groups have countered that rules supporting clean energy have done the same.

The number of jobs in the U.S. wind power industry rose 32 percent last year while solar power jobs rose by 25 percent, according to a Department of Energy study.


Environmental groups hurled scorn on Trump’s order, arguing it is dangerous and goes against the broader global trend toward cleaner energy technologies.

“These actions are an assault on American values and they endanger the health, safety and prosperity of every American,” said billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, the head of activist group NextGen Climate.

Green group Earthjustice was one of many organizations that said it will fight the order both in and out of court. “This order ignores the law and scientific reality,” said its president, Trip Van Noppen.

An overwhelming majority of scientists believe that human use of oil and coal for energy is a main driver of climate change, causing a damaging rise in sea levels, droughts, and more frequent violent storms.

But Trump and several members of his administration have doubts about climate change, and Trump promised during his campaign to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, arguing it would hurt U.S. business.

Since being elected Trump has been mum on the Paris deal and the executive order does not address it.

Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change who helped broker the Paris accord, lamented Trump’s order.

“Trying to make fossil fuels remain competitive in the face of a booming clean renewable power sector, with the clean air and plentiful jobs it continues to generate, is going against the flow of economics,” she said.

The order will direct the EPA to start a formal “review” process to undo the Clean Power Plan, which was introduced by Obama in 2014 but was never implemented in part because of legal challenges brought by Republican-controlled states.

The Clean Power Plan required states to collectively cut carbon emissions from power plants by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Some 85 percent of U.S. states are on track to meet the targets despite the fact the rule has not been implemented, according to Bill Becker, director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, a group of state and local air pollution control agencies.

Trump’s order also lifts the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management’s temporary ban on coal leasing on federal property put in place by Obama in 2016 as part of a review to study the program’s impact on climate change and ensure royalty revenues were fair to taxpayers.

It also asks federal agencies to discount the cost of carbon in policy decisions and the weight of climate change considerations in infrastructure permitting, and reverses rules limiting methane leakage from oil and gas facilities.

See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-energy-idUSKBN16Z1L6 (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/ (“A $34 Trillion Swindle: The Shame Of Global Warming“)


27 04 2017
Ron Michaels

Climate change has been debunked so many times by independent, qualified, experienced, professional scientists that it’s getting to be exhausting just listening to the continuing barrage of propaganda from the Left. It’s like telling a group of children to stop beating themselves in the head with a baseball bat while they just look at you and laugh. You begin to wonder if they know something you don’t until you sit back and realize that they are the blind trying to lead the sighted.

Liked by 1 person

27 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Well said, Ron. Thank you.

Again, it reminds one of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm (“Animal Farm”)


29 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Shame Of Man-Made Global Warming Has A New Adherent

Bret Stephens

Former anti-Trump Wall Street Journal writer, noted Israel Firster and Islamophobe, and most recently a New York Times writer, Bret Stephens has stated:

When someone is honestly 55 percent right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60 percent right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God.

But what’s to be said about 75 percent right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100 percent right? Whoever says he’s 100 percent right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.

— An old Jew of Galicia

In the final stretch of last year’s presidential race, Hillary Clinton and her team thought they were, if not 100 percent right, then very close.

Right on the merits. Confident in their methods. Sure of their chances. When Bill Clinton suggested to his wife’s advisers that, considering Brexit, they might be underestimating the strength of the populist tide, the campaign manager, Robby Mook, had a bulletproof answer: The data run counter to your anecdotes.

That detail comes from “Shattered,” Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes’s compulsively readable account of Clinton’s 2016 train wreck. Mook belonged to a new breed of political technologists with little time for retail campaigning and limitless faith in the power of models and algorithms to minimize uncertainty and all but predict the future.

“Mook and his ‘Moneyball’ approach to politics rankled the old order of political operatives and consultants because it made some of their work obsolete,” Allen and Parnes write about the campaign’s final days. “The memo that one Hillary adviser had sent months earlier warning that they should add three or four points to Trump’s poll position was a distant memory.”

There’s a lesson here. We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris. From Robert McNamara to Lehman Brothers to Stronger Together, cautionary tales abound.

We ought to know this by now, but we don’t. Instead, we respond to the inherent uncertainties of data by adding more data without revisiting our assumptions, creating an impression of certainty that can be lulling, misleading and often dangerous. Ask Clinton.

With me so far? Good. Let’s turn to climate change.

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html (“Climate of Complete Certainty“) (emphasis added); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/islamophobia-is-un-american/#comment-7908 (“The Ugly Face of Islamophobia: Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens”) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/boycott-the-gop-and-ignore-foreign-naysayers/#comment-7960 (“More Trash Talk About Donald Trump From Bret Stephens“)

Predictably, the fascist Left and Eco-Nazis have attacked one of their own, Stephens, viciously—and have urged the New York Times to fire him.

See http://nypost.com/2017/04/28/times-columnist-blasted-by-nasty-left-for-climate-change-piece/ (“Times columnist blasted by ‘nasty left’ for climate change piece“)


30 04 2017
Ron Michaels

Bret Stephens likes to “watch” himself talk. He’s fascinated by his carefully thought-out turns of phrase. But people are smarter now. They see clearly that what used to be “Global Warming” now is “Climate Change.” How convenient. When one scenario didn’t work he merely changed the name and the Legend. When zealots have a boat that won’t float they merely change its name and restructure the definitions of terminology to fit. It delays the sinking. But it’s just a switch from one absurdity to another. Even the most rabid supporters of climate disaster agree that many generations will pass before the earth sees even slight changes in the environment. The reaction most people have today demonstrates that deniers (as they’re called) have awakened. Their skepticism has been rewarded. No longer is Climate Change a significant issue to anyone other than those who are too locked in to the Climate myth to change. In 2016 even the United Nations office for Climate Change announced that “Climate Change is a hoax.” Apparently the most ardent supporters of the theory have chosen not to get the message. In fact, the trophy accomplishment of the Climate Change zealots, the Paris Climate Change Agreement, has not survived international scrutiny and will be vacated by the United States.

As for the presidential election, research is as research does. Clinton and Friends decided that they wanted to re-label falsehoods as “facts.” They structured their research to produce the output that would validate their propaganda. For example, they wanted the voters to believe that “only 43% of research respondents approved of President Donald Trump’s performance.” That was a lie destined for fame. To make it true, they built a question around that result and confirmed it as truth. How? The research questionnaire was distributed to a small group of 75 Democrats. When the same questionnaire was provided to 75 Republicans the result was an 87% approval rating. That’s one of the ways “research” can prove what the research chooses. The mistake the Clinton campaign made was not the lying, it was actually believing their own false research. They were so thrilled with the way the research output looked and sounded that they didn’t turn off the bubble machine. They kept quoting the same research results. The researchers and the Clinton campaign forgot that they were the ones who produced the answer before they designed the question. They shared their bogus research results with the “Main Stream Media” who lock-stepped it in a closed loop right back to the Clinton researchers. It was the perfect manifestation of “The Magic Mirror.” It’s astonishing when your original research results are confirmed by your own research results published by an “independent” source that you supplied. Simple. The Clinton researchers, in turn, threw more fuel on the flaming mess, magnified it, and ejected it into the public consciousness for distribution to Joe Six Pack as truth. It wasn’t accepted.

Additionally, the Democrats had primed its “voting machine” to produce more Democrat votes than there were people but they saw they didn’t have to pull the trigger on that cannon. They had the election wrapped up without the need to go nuclear and use voter fraud. Some Clinton voter fraud sneaked through but it was done by those who didn’t get the memo. Clinton’s vote gatherers finally were ordered to stop filling out all the blank ballots and just sit and watch the carnage. They told everyone that Trump was going down in a way that would be “humiliating.” Then reality struck when Trump began his historic state-by-state victory run. Panic took over. The Democrats stacked the deck in Los Angeles and New York and the voters gave the rest of the country to Trump. A resounding defeat for Clinton and her hidden emails. At this point, the campaign wise guys pulled the trigger on the voter-fraud “machine.” Too late. Clinton vote counts, after the election, tallied approximately 250k new votes for Clinton per week for a month after Clinton conceded. For months the campaign bellowed that “Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes.” No, she didn’t. All the “extra” votes came after the election was over and they came from just two places: Los Angeles and New York (the Clinton campaign failed to point that out).

And that’s where the Electoral College vividly demonstrated its indisputable value as a referee and final arbiter. Hopelessly, the Clinton campaign limped through the aftermath of the dangerous game they played. The blade they swung so carelessly during the heady, myopic euphoria of the campaign was discovered to have had a very sharp edge that cut both ways. All that remains of their folly are the headless remnants of the Democrat candidate and her hapless campaign managers. None of whom accept responsibility for planning and implementing the most disastrous political failure in the history of the United States of America. Months after the election the Democrats still look for a scapegoat for such a monumental political disaster. When last sighted, the Clinton campaign and all of the Democrats in Congress and across the country were claiming it was the Russians who helped Trump defeat Clinton. A simple replay of Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football.

Liked by 1 person

30 04 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Ron, for your additional comments. I agree completely.

You have succinctly and articulately set out the facts, and analyzed them; and you are to be commended. Well done. 🙂


26 05 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Global Warming Is A Hoax: Here’s Why

Global warming swindle

Political pundit and former advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton has summarized the discussion well, in a video that is worth watching—which is consistent with my article above, and my comments beneath it.

See http://www.dickmorris.com/global-warming-hoax-heres-lunch-alert/


1 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Paris Is D-E-A-D! [UPDATED]

The “environmental Nazis” and “eco-rabble” lost. The American people have won!

See also http://www.nysun.com/foreign/improbable-bedfellows-suddenly-start-to-emerge/89997/ (“Improbable Bedfellows
Are Suddenly Emerging Onto the World Stage”—”[The Paris Accord was an] ‘assault on the capitalist system'”—”The president of the United States spoke the truth, and the world will be grateful to him for it. The United States is back to 1994 levels of carbon dioxide emissions and has been eminently responsible and a world leader in rolling back dependence on carbon. The world temperature has risen one centigrade degree in 82 years, and if every target of the Paris Agreement were met, the effect on the world’s temperature to the end of this century would be about one fifth of one centigrade degree. . . . Donald Trump is the emperor who pointed out that the eco-rabble have no clothes”
) and http://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-constitutional-climate/89996/ (“The Constitutional Climate“) and https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord (“The 11 Dumbest Reactions to Trump Quitting the Paris Climate Accord“) and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/business/dealbook/trump-climate-small-businesses.html?_r=0 (“Small Businesses Cheer ‘New Sheriff in Town’ After Climate Pact Exit”—”[W]alking away from the Paris agreement was just another example of a bottom-line business decision made by a president who knows a good deal from a bad one”—”[C]ompanies that employ up to a few hundred workers — such companies make up 99 percent of businesses in the United States and account for half of its private sector employment — are held to a more onerous standard than their larger peers when it comes to complying with regulations”—”To some small business executives, seeing the president talk tough to the Europeans and the Chinese was a reminder of why they voted for him in the first place”); but see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris-climate-agreement.html (“Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement”—”But he will stick to the withdrawal process laid out in the Paris agreement. . . . That could take nearly four years to complete, meaning a final decision would be up to the American voters in the next presidential election”)


6 06 2017
Joe Madrid

I found you again! Saw a comment you posted on TE. (Economist). The Dick Morris short was good–I keep links like it to add to comments I make about climate change.
I used one of yours about the Obama job creation myth a lot but lost the link when I wiped my computer awhile back. Some of David Stockman’s are good. He had several on Reaganomics and how it started our deficit spending and debt/leverage problem we have now. He believes supply side economics hagiography among republicans is overblown. You had some good pictures on your site–I can still picture one of the German hunter standing over a dead lion. I know what I would wish for him-meet the lion’s mate in a confined area without a gun.


6 06 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Joe, for your comments.


18 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data

Global warming swindle

Tyler Durden has reported at ZeroHedge:

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings.

Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

In short: The evidence has been falsified.

Karl Denninger sums it up succinctly:

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.

Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.

I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

. . .

And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.

The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans. . . .

See http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent- (“Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: ‘Not Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data'”) (emphasis in original and added; chart and video omitted)

All of this is consistent with my article above.


29 07 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars [UPDATED]

Tesla fail

Alex Brummer has written in the UK’s Daily Mail:

Earlier this year, car buyers were encouraged to take advantage of the Government’s new environmentally friendly decision to exempt from road tax all electric cars with zero carbon emissions that cost less than £40,000.

Intrigued to see the choices that might be available, I visited a Mitsubishi dealer. The hottest model on the forecourt in this category was the latest hybrid Sports Utility Vehicle.

A salesman told me that if I was interested in buying it and wanted to avoid the slow process of recharging the car overnight using my domestic electricity supply, he could install a more powerful charger on my driveway for free.

I had never realised that owning an electric car involved such a daily palaver. So, put off by the idea of having to plug in the car every night and the potential for overloading our house’s electric circuits, I did not proceed any further.

Instead, I went back down the traditional fossil fuel route. I did so reluctantly, considering that petrol, and particularly diesel, engines clearly produce polluting and lethally noxious fumes.

Like many others over the past decades, I feel I have been a victim of irresponsibly confusing messages from government ministers and the motor industry.

It has been a long saga. First, everyone was urged to buy a car fuelled by unleaded petrol, which doesn’t emit as many harmful substances nor damage a car’s exhaust and spark plugs.

Then we were assured by Tony Blair’s Labour government that diesel was cleaner than petrol and we were given financial incentives to buy diesel vehicles.

Some years later we were told that toxic particles from diesel vehicles can work their way through the lungs and into the bloodstream, raising the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

On top of this, we were told lies by car manufacturers — such as Volkswagen — as they deceived us by cheating in emissions tests to pretend their products were less polluting than they actually were.

And so, as the Government announces its latest oh-so-clever green policy — levies on diesel vehicles in heavily-polluted areas and banning all petrol and diesel vehicles from Britain’s roads from 2040 — it is not surprising that we motorists are deeply distrustful of any environmental initiative involving politicians.

True, the futuristic idea of odourless, quiet and perhaps driverless cars travelling down motorways and pootling around our cities may appear to be a green utopia. But Government policies seem to be woefully thought-out and I fear the true economic (and environmental) costs of this new Nirvana will be enormous.

For the 2040 ban will mean changing from a society where currently less than 5 per cent of the cars registered (about 90,000) have a form of electric power to 100 per cent (nine million cars) in just 22 years.

Such an ambition must be hubris. The ineluctable truth is that a big increase in the number of electric vehicles on our roads will place a massive demand on our already over-stretched electricity supply.

The National Grid has said it could see peak electricity demand jump by more than the capacity of the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear power station by 2030. (It is hoped the plant will provide 7 per cent of the UK’s electricity.)

The drain on supply from millions of car batteries being charged would reverse the trend in recent years of falling electricity demand, driven by energy efficiency measures.

This is pie-in-the sky politics with little thought given to where the extra electricity will come from. Unless, of course, ministers want to plaster more of the countryside with wind turbines — which a government adviser once admitted that, even if ten per cent of Britain was covered with them, would generate only one sixth of the nation’s energy needs.

Even without electric cars, there are fears of future blackouts during winter cold spells.

What’s more, Britain is increasingly dependent on foreign suppliers for electricity — with pipelines coming from the Continent and with giants such as France’s EDF running our nuclear power stations.

This means that not only do we risk losing supply during bad weather, but we are also dependent on good relations with foreign governments.

As for the Government’s energy strategy, the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant has been described by the National Audit Office (NAO) as ‘risky and expensive’ and having ‘uncertain’ economic benefits.

Also, it threatens to be a bad deal for consumers. EDF and China General Nuclear, which are building the plant, will be paid a guaranteed £92.50 per megawatt hour, rising with inflation for 35 years. The NAO says this amounts to a £30 billion subsidy — or between £10 and £15 on an average household’s annual bill.

Although the Government must be praised for its support of BMW after the car-maker decided to build a new generation of battery-powered Minis in Cowley, the lack of investment in the UK in battery technology is shamefully irresponsible. Indeed — surprise, surprise — the power units for the Minis will be imported from Germany.

Overseas, big money and clever brains are being put behind research in this field — such as U.S. entrepreneur Elon Musk, founder of Tesla electric cars, building a £3.9 billion factory for lithium batteries.

And there is another paradox about the Government’s obsession with electric vehicles. For this is a time in history when the availability of carbon fuels has never been so great.

Gone is all apocalyptic talk of ‘peak oil’, of the oil producers’ cartel OPEC pushing up the price of a barrel of crude oil and of reserves drying up.

The truth is that the fracking boom means America is almost oil and gas self-sufficient and no longer dependent on the Middle East. Techniques which allow safer deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic also have vastly increased sources of supply.

So confident is the U.S. of having an energy surplus that it has signed long-term contracts with Centrica, owner of British Gas, to provide the UK with large quantities of liquified natural gas.

The high level of U.S. production, together with renewed output from Iran and Iraq, countries absent from global markets for many years, means that crude oil prices have more than halved in price from $100-a-barrel in recent years.

How perverse, therefore, with technology making diesel and petrol engines cleaner than ever, for British motorists to be forced to swap a fairly cheap source of energy for one which is going to be hugely costly.

No one in government has even told us the cost of spending millions of unnecessary money on the National Grid in order to supply electricity to all those new plug-points.

Moreover, there has not been any discussion of the safety impact of building electricity pillars in homes. Already, there are fears that circuit-breakers would pop under strain, thus cutting off supplies.

All these important issues are ones that Government ministers seem to be ignoring.

How ironic, too, at a time when new petrol and even diesel cars are so much less polluting as a result of catalytic converters and purifying technologies, that Environment Secretary Michael Gove talks about bans and tolls on the most polluted roads.

The right time would be when Britain has a plan for new electricity generating capacity.

Yes, protection of the environment from pollution is important for our health and for future generations. But in the end it is the free market and consumer choice which ought to decide — not politicians who have consistently shown themselves to be both incompetent and wrong when it comes to looking after our transport and energy needs.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4734028/Electric-cars-numbering-9m-need-powered-somehow.html (“So how on earth are we going to power nine million electric cars [in the UK alone?]”) (emphasis added); see also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/21/dont-boil-kettle-charging-electric-car-will-blow-fuse-national/ (“Don’t boil the kettle while charging your electric car because it will blow the fuse, National Grid warns“) and https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-model-3-arrives-as-elon-musk-tries-to-manage-expectations-1501234208 (“Tesla Model 3 Arrives as Elon Musk Warns of ‘Manufacturing Hell’”) and https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4136122/elon-musk-is-bipolar-and-suffers-from-unrelenting-stress-he-reveals-in-astonishingly-honest-tweets/ (“Elon Musk is ‘bipolar’ and suffers from ‘unrelenting’ stress, he reveals in astonishingly honest tweets“) and http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/13/its-time-to-stop-spending-taxpayer-dollars-on-elon-musk-and-cronyism/ (“It’s Time to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Elon Musk and Cronyism“) and http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/345338-can-we-wean-elon-musk-off-government-support-already (“Can we wean Elon Musk off government support already?“) and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/married-americans-are-more-unhappy-than-ever (“Tesla is burning through cash. (By the end of the year, Elon Musk’s company will have spent $10 billion without even making 10 cents, Bloomberg’s David Welch reports.) In the U.S., sales of electric cars still counted for less than 1 percent of the market last year“) and https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/tesla-recalling-11000-model-x-suvs-for-seat-issue.html (“Tesla recalling 11,000 Model X SUVs for seat issue“) and https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/02/tesla_share_price_drop_tax_break/ (“Tesla share crash amid Republican bid to kill off electric car tax break“) and http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bad-air-days-20171115-story.html (“Southern California smog worsens for second straight year despite reduced emissions“) and https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-11095 (“MORE CALIFORNIA LUNACY: EDISON SAYS STATE NEEDS ONE-QUARTER OF ITS VEHICLES TO BE ELECTRIC“)

First, the United States is approximately 40 times the size of the United Kingdom, which itself is comprised of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Hence, American driving distances are much greater than anything the Brits are used to.

Second, no one has answered yet if the Tesla batteries are toxic and where they will end up. In nuclear waste or similar dumps—which the the “eco-freaks” or “eco-Nazis” (take your pick) fight against?

Third, lots of Americans are getting 35-40 miles per gallon now, with wonderful, reliable gasoline-powered vehicles.

Fourth, it has been reported that a Tesla truck will be coming out soon. Few if any self-respecting Ford F-series truck owners will switch to a Tesla. Presently, such Fords are the largest selling vehicles in the U.S. by far.

Fifth, as discussed in my article above, man-made “global warming” is a hoax and the “Great Green Con,” and nothing more than a $34 trillion wealth transfer scheme, concocted by the Left and the eco-Nazis.

Its adherents would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society” centuries ago, and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

George Orwell described its “leaders” in his timeless Animal Farm, where all animals were supposed to be equal until the Pigs reigned supreme and subjugated the other animals.

The eco-Nazis and other Leftists are bound and determined to kill off all forms of abundant, cheap energy, inter alia, because they pray at the altar of man-made “global warming.”

For example, unsightly wind turbines kill birds. Just travel east from Los Angeles to Palm Desert and one will pass wind farms with killer turbines, and others that were abandoned years ago when their tax benefits expired.

See, e.g., http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds (“Will Wind Turbines Ever Be Safe For Birds?“)

The “status symbol” of the eco-Nazis and their equally-despicable Leftist cohorts in the United States—especially on the Left Coast—is the Tesla, which is why so many Americans want to see the brand go the way of the Edsel and DeLorean, into the junkheap of history. The sooner, the better.

Sixth, in the final analysis, the Tesla may end up like the Edsel and DeLorean: nothing more than collectors’ items of brands that have disappeared.

Seventh, Musk and Tesla and Tesla buyers should get ZERO tax credits and/or other incentives.

Eighth, Tesla, Prius and other electric/hybrid cars are essentially silent at times, and pedestrians and others can be killed or injured because of it. When this happens, the electric car makers should be sued for millions.

Ninth, Musk is a con artist, and the Tesla is the ultimate con.

In Hans Christian Andersen’s fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” two make-believe weavers purport to spin a fine suit of clothes for the emperor, which is made of beautiful material that possesses the wonderful quality of being invisible to any man who is unfit for his office or unpardonably stupid.

The potentate and his subjects acknowledge that the garments are very fine indeed. That is, until one little child sees the emperor marching in a procession, and says at last: “But he has nothing on at all”—and the grand swindle is exposed for all to see.

It is simply a matter of time before Musk is exposed, and joins the ranks of Bernie Madoff and others.

Tenth, the Wall Street Journal has reported that “cobalt has suddenly emerged as the electric car killer,” and that “[o]utput is concentrated in the politically unstable Democratic Republic of Congo and refining is dominated by China.”

See https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-tesla-die-for-lack-of-cobalt-1511951403?mg=prod/accounts-wsj (“Will Tesla Die for Lack of Cobalt?“)

Lastly and most importantly, while Elon Musk has ambitious plans that may or may not materialize, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has even more ambitious plans for us, which will end all of Musk’s dreams . . . and ours.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/emp-attack-only-30-million-americans-survive/#comment-10505 (“North Korea EMP Threat Advancing Faster Than Expected“) (see also the extensive comments beneath the article itself)

Before Barack Obama took office, I discussed—with one of his highest operatives—the risks that an EMP Attack represented. Then, both China and Russia had let it be known that they could launch one against the American mainland and we would not be able to stop them except for MAD (“mutual assured destruction”).

Today, one can be launched from North Korea, or from a sub or barge located in the Atlantic or Pacific, or in the Gulf of Mexico or the Sea of Cortez. Our military is partially hardened, but the civilian sector is not.

As my EMP Attack article points out—buttressed by fine work by the EMP Commission and the Wall Street Journal—only 30 million Americans would survive, which is scary to say the least. The rest would be highly vulnerable to secondary attacks by conventional forces or biological weapons.

This should be the number one issue in Washington and throughout our great nation, instead of the nonstop efforts to cripple or destroy the Trump presidency, which is utter madness.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/americas-newest-civil-war-2017-and-beyond/ (“America’s Newest Civil War: 2017 And Beyond“)


12 09 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Global warming swindle

Valerie Richardson has written in The Washington Times:

Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but it hasn’t discouraged climate scientists like Judith Curry.

A retired Georgia Tech professor, she argued on her Climate Etc. website that Irma, which hit Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on Saturday, was fueled in large part by “very weak” wind shear and that the hurricane intensified despite Atlantic Ocean temperatures that weren’t unusually warm.

That is the kind of talk that could get policymakers who heed her research hauled before the justice system, if some of those in the climate change movement have their way.

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

The suggestion that those who run afoul of the climate change consensus, in particular government officials, should face charges comes with temperatures flaring over the link between hurricanes and greenhouse gas emissions.

“In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence — and hold those who do the denying accountable,” said the subhead in the Outline article, written by Brian Merchant.

Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.”

Climate skeptics have taken note of the alarming trend. “Ever since Hurricane Harvey, the global warming-hurricane hysteria has ratcheted up to levels I haven’t seen since 2006,” said Ms. Curry.

Anthony Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That blog, listed some of the threats to criminalize skeptics under the headline, “Hate on Display — climate activists go bonkers over #Irma and nonexistent climate connection.”

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano said the heightened vitriol aimed at those who dispute the link between climate change and extreme weather events is a sign that the global warming narrative is losing steam with the public and policymakers.

“Activists have been frustrated with record number of polar bears, no acceleration of sea level, the Pause, no trends or declining trends in extreme weather and the public’s apathy,” said Mr. Morano, whose book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” is slated to be released in February.

“Trump has added to all of that, and we are now seeing them blow their gaskets in frustration,” he said.

Given the heated exchanges fueled by the two hurricanes, the climate change debate is clearly far from resolved.

President Trump has said he plans to pull out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, drawing an outcry from those who argue that rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are driving higher temperatures and natural disasters such as drought, wildfires and hurricanes.

“The effects of climate change are no longer subtle. We are seeing them play out before us here and now. And they will only worsen if we fail to act,” said a Sept. 7 op-ed in The Washington Post co-authored by Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann.

White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert deflected questions at a Monday press briefing about whether Harvey and Irma were caused or made worse by human-driven climate change, saying that “causality is outside of my ability to analyze right now.”

“I will tell you that we continue to take seriously the climate change, not the cause of it, but the things that we observe,” Mr. Bossert said. “And so there’s rising floodwaters — I think 1 inch every 10 years in Tampa — things that would require prudent mitigation measures.”

Meanwhile, Pope Francis said the two Category 4 storms offer proof of catastrophic climate change, even though they are the first two major hurricanes to make landfall on the U.S. mainland in 12 years.

“You can see the effects of climate change with your own eyes, and scientists tell us clearly the way forward,” said the pontiff, adding that leaders have a “moral responsibility” to take action.

An analysis by Colorado State University meteorologist Philip Klotzbach found that the latest hurricanes weren’t unprecedented in terms of their power upon making landfall in the U.S.

His chart showed that Irma made landfall in Florida at 929 mb, or millibars, tying it for the seventh most powerful storm to hit the mainland since record-keeping began in the 1850s.

In Texas, Hurricane Harvey ranked 17th at 938 mb, placing it in a three-way tie with an 1898 Georgia hurricane and Hurricane Hazel in 1954.

The push to prosecute climate skeptics comes even though the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has concluded that it is “premature to conclude that human activities — and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming — have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or tropical cyclone activity.”

“That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable,” said the Aug. 30 statement.

On the other side is billionaire Richard Branson, owner of Virgin Airlines, who rode out Irma on his private island in the British Virgin Islands and cited the hurricanes as evidence of human-caused global warming.

“Man-made climate change is contributing to increasingly strong hurricanes causing unprecedented damage,” Mr. Branson said in a Friday statement. “The whole world should be scrambling to get on top of the climate change issue before it is too late for this generation, let alone the generations to come.”

Mr. Watts said the air pressure graphic should prompt global warming activists to take a deep breath.

“With Irma ranked 7th, and Harvey ranked 18th, it’s going to be tough for climate alarmists to try connecting these two storms to being driven by CO2/global warming,” Mr. Watts said in a post. “But they’ll do it anyway.”

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept/ (“Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes“) (emphasis added)

So-called man-made “global warming” is a $34 trillion swindle, a hoax, and “The Great Green Con.” Its proponents are fanatical, delusional, deranged fraudsters and evil hucksters, and far-Left “eco-Nazis.”

In another time, the proponents of “global warming” would have been members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.

George Orwell foretold of this madness in his Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm (“Animal Farm”); see also https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“)


1 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele


Tesla fail

Steve Scauzillo has written in the Orange County Register:

Saying it was committed to slowing global climate change, Southern California Edison doubled down Tuesday on its goal for escalating the state’s share of renewable power.

SCE called for huge increases in electric vehicles, as well as replacing natural gas water heaters in homes and businesses with electric heaters.

In a report titled “The Clean Power and Electrification Pathway,” the Rosemead-based investor said it wanted to double the use of carbon-free electricity from 40 percent to 80 percent by 2030.

The utility is ahead of schedule for reaching 50 percent power from renewables by 2030, now saying the state needs to raise the bar.

In order for California to achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2030 as set by law, the utility says it will eliminate its fossil-fuel power sources and add more solar, wind, geothermal and large-scale hydroelectric power to the grid — plus additional battery storage for that power.

If 80 percent of California’s power came from renewable sources, it would lower greenhouse gases from 84 million metric tons to 28 million metric tons per year, about 31 percent of the 2030 reduction goal, according to the report — still not enough for the state to reach its greenhouse gas reduction target.

SCE is asking the state’s top environmental and energy agencies to be more aggressive and for consumers to buy zero-emissions cars and energy-stingy appliances during the next 12 years.

If not, the state could see more intense droughts and devastating wildfires that a majority of scientists say are made worse by the effects of climate change.

“We wrote this as a citizen of the state,” said Pedro Pizarro, president and CEO of Edison International, parent company of SCE, in an interview Tuesday. “We have a small part to play in this but an important part. This will require a lot of different actions from a lot of players.”

The plan would almost double the number of electric cars expected by state agencies by 2030.

The California Air Resources Board’s plan calls for 4 million EVs. But SCE says reaching the state emission goals will take rolling out 7 million EVs, both passenger models and heavy-duty vehicles.

That’s equal to about 24 percent of all vehicles in the state. Today, there are about 300,000 EVs on state roads.

State energy regulators have been selling excess solar power to other states at a loss because of an influx of power from solar rooftops and large-scale solar projects in the desert, Pizarro said. SCE estimates a need for 10 gigawatts of battery storage to hold onto sun power for use at night.

For years, utilities espoused charging up at night, but they now say EVs sitting in shopping centers or workplace parking lots can act as mobile battery storage and help balance out the state’s power load.

Electric vehicle owners are now encouraged to charge their cars between 12 noon and 4 p.m., when there’s an abundance of clean energy in the grid.

Edison is providing discounts for shopping centers and office complexes to install public car chargers, Pizarro said.

The United Kingdom, France, Norway, India and China have announced plans to eliminate all internal combustion vehicles in the coming decades, while Volvo will only produce electric and hybrid cars beginning in 2019, the report stated.

Additional funding is needed to help utilities build more infrastructure for public charging stations and electric car chargers at workplaces and shopping centers, the report said.

Pizarro said Edison, as well as other utilities, need time to modernize transmission lines in order to handle an electrified transportation network and increased number of electric water and space heaters in buildings.

The report calls for utilities, state environmental agencies and consumers to begin moving toward a “new energy paradigm” that addresses the challenge of global climate change as well as improving local air quality.

He said SCE’s plan is the most economical way to reach the 2030 goal, as well as the 80 percent greenhouse gas reduction goal set for 2050, while adding new, skilled jobs.

“This is feasible. This can be done. We can get there,” he said.

See http://www.ocregister.com/2017/10/31/edison-says-california-needs-one-quarter-of-its-vehicles-to-be-electric-to-meet-climate-change-goals/?ito=792 (“Edison says California needs one-quarter of its vehicles to be electric to meet climate change goals“) (emphasis added)

Many of us were born and raised in California, and we will always love the State and have fond memories of our time growing up there. But this is sheer madness, in pursuit of the man-made “global warming” hoax, and yet another example of California’s “politically correct” lunacy. It is among the many reasons why the “Flyover States”—which elected our President, and will reelect him in 2020—view California with such unbridled contempt if not hatred, and as “La La Land.”

However, it is certainly consistent with the Harvey Weinstein and related scandals that have been rocking Hollywood, which has been known for decades as a center of depravity and the “hunting ground” for would-be starlets.

See, e.g., https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/washington-is-sick-and-the-american-people-know-it/#comment-10901 (“HOLLYWOOD HAS BEEN SICK FOR DECADES“)

Edison is simply playing politics, sadly. Electric cars such as the Tesla are destined for oblivion.

See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/a-34-trillion-swindle-the-shame-of-global-warming/#comment-10525 (“The Swindle And Shame Of Global Warming: Electric Cars“); see also http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bad-air-days-20171115-story.html (“Southern California smog worsens for second straight year despite reduced emissions“)


16 11 2017
Timothy D. Naegele

The Latest Global Warming Madness

Global warming swindle

The UK’s Economist has reported:

SWEDEN’S parliament passed a law in June which obliges the country to have “no net emissions” of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2045. The clue is in the wording. This does not mean that three decades from now Swedes must emit no planet-heating substances; even if all their electricity came from renewables and they only drove Teslas, they would presumably still want to fly in aeroplanes, or use cement and fertiliser, the making of which releases plenty of carbon dioxide. Indeed, the law only requires gross emissions to drop by 85% compared with 1990 levels. But it demands that remaining carbon sources are offset with new carbon sinks. In other words greenhouse gases will need to be extracted from the air.

Sweden’s pledge is among the world’s most ambitious. But if the global temperature is to have a good chance of not rising more than 2ºC above its pre-industrial level, as stipulated in the Paris climate agreement of 2015, worldwide emissions must similarly hit “net zero” no later than 2090. After that, emissions must go “net negative”, with more carbon removed from the stock than is emitted.

This is because what matters to the climate is the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To keep the temperature below a certain level means keeping within a certain “carbon budget”—allowing only so much to accumulate, and no more. Once you have spent that budget, you have to balance all new emissions with removals. If you overspend it, the fact that the world takes time to warm up means you have a brief opportunity to put things right by taking out more than you are putting in.

Being able to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is, therefore, a crucial element in meeting climate targets. Of the 116 models the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) looks at to chart the economically optimal paths to the Paris goal, 101 assume “negative emissions”. No scenarios are at all likely to keep warming under 1.5ºC without greenhouse-gas removal. “It is built into the assumptions of the Paris agreement,” says Gideon Henderson of Oxford University.

Climate scientists like Mr Henderson have been discussing negative-emissions technologies (NETs) with economists and policy wonks since the 1990s. Their debate has turned livelier since the Paris agreement, the phrasing of which strongly suggests that countries will need to invent new sinks as well as cutting emissions. But so far politicians have largely ignored the issue, preferring to focus on curbing current flows of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. NETs were conspicuous by their absence from the agenda of the annual UN climate jamboree which ended in Bonn on November 17th.

In the short term this makes sense. The marginal cost of reducing emissions is currently far lower than the marginal cost of taking carbon dioxide straight from the atmosphere. But climate is not a short-term game. And in the long term, ignoring the need for negative emissions is complacent at best. The eventual undertaking, after all, will be gargantuan. The median IPCC model assumes sucking up a total of 810bn tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2100, equivalent to roughly 20 years of global emissions at the current rate. To have any hope of doing so, preparations for large-scale extraction ought to begin in the 2020s.

Modellers favour NETs that use plants because they are a tried and true technology. Reforesting logged areas or “afforesting” previously treeless ones presents no great technical challenges. More controversially, they also tend to invoke “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS). In BECCS, power stations fuelled by crops that can be burned to make energy have their carbon-dioxide emissions injected into deep geological strata, rather than released into the atmosphere.

The technology for doing the CCS part of BECCS has been around for a while; some scenarios for future energy generation rely heavily on it. But so far there are only 17 CCS programmes big enough to dispose of around 1m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Promoting CCS is an uphill struggle, mainly because it doubles the cost of energy from the dirty power plants whose flues it scrubs. Other forms of low-emission electricity are much cheaper. Affixed to bioenergy generation, though, CCS does something that other forms of generation cannot. The carbon which the plants that serve as fuel originally took from the atmosphere above is sent into the rocks below, making it a negative emitter.

The problem with afforestation and BECCS is that the plants involved need a huge amount of land. The area estimated ranges from 3.2m square kilometres (roughly the size of India) to as much as 9.7m square kilometres (roughly the size of Canada). That is the equivalent of between 23% and 68% of the world’s arable land. It may be that future agricultural yields can be increased so dramatically that, even in a world with at least 2bn more mouths to feed, the area of its farms could be halved, and that the farmers involved might be happy with this turn of events. But it seems highly unlikely—and blithely assuming it can be done is plainly reckless.

Negative thinking

Less land-intensive alternatives exist—at least on paper. Some are low tech, like stimulating the soil to store more carbon by limiting or halting deep-ploughing. Others are less so, such as contraptions to seize carbon dioxide directly from the air, or methods that accelerate the natural weathering processes by which minerals in the Earth’s crust bind atmospheric carbon over aeons or that introduce alkaline compounds into the sea to make it absorb more carbon dioxide.

According to Jennifer Wilcox of the Colorado School of Mines, and her colleagues, the technology with the second-highest theoretical potential, after BECCS, is direct air capture (see chart 2). This uses CCS-like technology on the open air, rather than on exhaust gases. The problem is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, while very high by historical standards, is very low by chemical-engineering ones: just 0.04%, as opposed to the 10% or more offered by power-plant chimneys and industrial processes such as cement-making.

The technologies that exist today, under development by companies such as Global Thermostat in America, Carbon Engineering in Canada or Climeworks of Switzerland, remain pricey. In 2011 a review by the American Physical Society to which Ms Wilcox contributed put extraction costs above $600 per tonne, compared with an average estimate of $60-250 for BECCS.

Enhanced weathering is at an even earlier stage of development and costs are still harder to assess. Estimates range from $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide to $600. On average, 2-4 tonnes of silicate minerals (olivine, sometimes used in Finnish saunas because it withstands repeated heating and cooling, is a favourite) are needed for every tonne removed. To extract 5bn tonnes of carbon dioxide a year may require up to 20bn tonnes of minerals that must be ground into fine dust. Grinding is energy-intensive. Distributing the powder evenly, on land or sea, would be a logistical challenge to put it mildly.

Ideas abound on a small scale, in labs or in researchers’ heads, but the bigger mechanical schemes in existence today capture a paltry 40m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Most involve CCS and have prevented more carbon dioxide escaping into the atmosphere from fossil-burning power plants, rather than removing it. Removing 8bn-10bn tonnes by 2050, as the more sanguine scenarios envisage, let alone the 35bn-40bn tonnes in more pessimistic ones, will be a vast undertaking.

Progress will be needed on many fronts. All the more reason to test lots of technologies. For the time being even researchers with a horse in the race are unwilling to bet on a winner. Pete Smith of Aberdeen University speaks for many NETs experts when he says that “none is a silver bullet, and none has a fatal flaw.”

It will also not come cheap. WITCH, constructed by Massimo Tavoni of Politecnico di Milano, is a model which analyses climate scenarios. Unlike most simulations, it also estimates how much research-and-development funding is necessary to achieve roll-out at the sort of scale these models forecast. For all low-carbon technologies, it puts the figure at $65bn a year until 2050, four times the sum that renewables, batteries and the like attract today. Mr Tavoni says a chunk of that would obviously need to go to NETs, which currently get next to nothing.

Even the less speculative technologies need investment right away. Trees take decades to reach their carbon-sucking potential, so large-scale planting needs to start soon, notes Tim Searchinger of Princeton University. Direct air capture in particular looks expensive. Boosters note that a few years ago so did renewables. Before technological progress brought prices down, many countries subsidised renewable-energy sources to the tune of $500 per tonne of carbon dioxide avoided and often spent huge sums on it. Christoph Gebald, co-founder of Climeworks, says that “the first data point on our technological learning curve” is $600, at the lower end of previous estimates. But like the price of solar panels, he expects his costs to drop in the coming years, perhaps to as low as $100 per tonne.

However, the falling price of solar panels was a result of surging production volumes, which NETs will struggle to replicate. As Oliver Geden of the German Institute of International and Security Affairs observes, “You cannot tell the green-growth story with negative emissions.” A market exists for rooftop solar panels and electric vehicles; one for removing an invisible gas from the air to avert disaster decades from now does not.

Much of the gas captured by Climeworks and other pure NETs firms (as opposed to fossil-fuel CCS) is sold to makers of fizzy drinks or greenhouses to help plants grow. It is hard to imagine that market growing far beyond today’s total of 10m tonnes. And in neither case is the gas stored indefinitely. It is either burped out by consumers of carbonated drinks or otherwise exuded by eaters of greenhouse-grown produce.

There may be other markets, though. It is very hard to imagine aircraft operating without liquid fuels. One way to provide them would be to create them chemically using carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere. It is conceivable that this might be cheaper than alternatives, such as biofuels—especially if the full environmental impact of the biofuels is accounted for. The demand for direct air capture spurred by such a market might drive its costs low enough to make it a more plausible NET.

From thin air

One way to create a market for NETs would be for governments to put a price on carbon. Where they have done so, the technologies have been adopted. Take Norway, which in 1991 told oil firms drilling in the North Sea to capture carbon dioxide from their operations or pay up. This cost is now around $50 per tonne emitted; in one field, called Sleipner, the firms have found ways to pump it back underground for less than that. A broader carbon price—either a tax or tradable emissions permits—would promote negative emissions elsewhere, too.

Then there is the issue of who should foot the bill. Many high-impact negative-emissions schemes make most sense in low-emitting countries, says Ms Wilcox. Brazil could in theory reforest the cerrado (though that would face resistance because of the region’s role in growing soyabeans and beef). Countries of sub-Saharan Africa could do the same in their own tropical savannahs. Spreading olivine in the Amazon and Congo river basins could soak up 2bn tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Developing countries would be understandably loth to bankroll any of this to tackle cumulative emissions, most of which come from the rich world. The latter would doubtless recoil at footing the bill, preferring to concentrate on curbing current emissions in the mistaken belief that once these reach zero, the job is done.

Whether NETs deserve to be lumped in with more outlandish “geoengineering” proposals, such as cooling the Earth with sunlight-reflecting sulphur particles in the stratosphere, is much debated. What they have in common is that they offer ways to deal with the effects of emissions that have already taken place. Proponents of small-scale, low-impact NETs, such as changes to soil management on farms, though, bridle at being considered alongside what they see as high-tech hubris of the most disturbing kind. NETs certainly inspire fewer fears of catastrophic, planetary-scale side-effects than “solar radiation management”.

But they do stoke some when it comes to the consequences of tinkering with the ocean’s alkalinity or injecting large amounts of gas underground. And the direct effects of large-scale BECCS or afforestation projects would be huge. If they don’t take up arable land, they need to take up pasture or wilderness. Either option would be a big deal in terms of both human amenity and biodiversity.

Another concern is the impact on politicians and the dangers of moral hazard. NETs allow politicians to go easy on emission cuts now in the hope that a quick fix will appear in the future. This could prove costly if the technology works—and costlier still if it does not. One study found that following a 2°C mitigation path which takes for granted NETs that fail to materialise would leave the world closer to 3°C warmer. Mr Geden is not alone in fearing that models that increasingly rely on NETs are “a cover for political inaction”.

Everything and the carbon sink

There is some progress. Academics are paying more attention. This year’s edition of “Emissions Gap”, an influential annual report from the UN Environment Programme, devotes a chapter to carbon-dioxide removal. Mr Henderson is leading a study of the subject for Britain’s Royal Society; America’s National Academy of Sciences has commissioned one, too. Both are due next spring. The IPCC will look at the technology in its special report on the 1.5ºC target, due next autumn.

There’s some money, too. Carbon Engineering has attracted backers such as Bill Gates, and now has a pilot plant in Canada. Climeworks has actually sold some carbon-offset credits—to a private investor and a big corporation—on the basis of the carbon dioxide it has squirrelled away at a demonstration plant it recently launched in Iceland. Earlier this year Britain’s government became the first to set aside some cash specifically for NETs research. In October America’s Department of Energy announced a series of grants for “novel and enabling” carbon-capture technologies, some of which could help in the development of schemes for direct air capture. Richard Branson, a British tycoon, has offered $25m to whoever first comes up with a “commercially viable design” that would remove 1bn tonnes of greenhouse gases a year for ten years.

All this is welcome, but not enough. The sums involved are trifling: £8.6m ($11.3m) in Britain and $26m from the Department of Energy. The offset sold by Climeworks was for just 100 tonnes. Mr Branson’s prize has gone unclaimed for a decade.

A carbon price—which is a good idea for other reasons, too, would beef up interest in NETs. But one high enough to encourage pricey moonshots may prove too onerous for the rest of the economy. Any price would promote more established low-carbon technologies first and NETs only much later, thinks Glen Peters of the Centre for International Climate Research in Oslo.

Encouraging CCS for fossil fuels as a stepping stone to NETs appeals to some. The fossil-fuel industry says it is committed to the technology. Total, a French oil giant, has promised to spend a tenth of its $600m research budget on CCS and related technologies. A group of oil majors says it will spend up to $500m on similar projects between now and 2027. But the field’s slow progress to date hardly encourages optimism. Governments’ commitment to CCS has historically proved fickle.

Last year Britain abruptly scrapped a £1bn public grant for an industrial-scale CCS plant which would have helped fine-tune the technology. For this to change, politicians must expand the focus of the 23-year-old UN Framework Convention on Climate Change from cutting emissions of greenhouse gases to controlling their airborne concentrations, suggests Janos Pasztor, a former climate adviser to the UN secretary-general. In other words, they must think about stocks of carbon dioxide, not just flows.

This is all the more true because emissions continue to elude control. After three years of more or less stable emissions, a zippier world economy looks on track to belch 2% more carbon dioxide this year. That amounts once again to borrowing more of the planet’s remaining carbon budget against future removal. It doesn’t take a numerate modeller like Mr Tavoni to grasp that, in his words, “If you create a debt, you must repay it.” The price of default does not bear thinking about.

See https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21731386-cutting-emissions-will-not-be-enough-keep-global-warming-check-greenhouse-gases-must-be (“Greenhouse gases must be scrubbed from the air“) (Note: “This article appeared in the Briefing section of the print edition [of the Economist] under the headline ‘Sucking up carbon'”) (emphasis added; charts omitted)

As discussed in the article above and the comments beneath it, so-called man-made “global warming” or “climate change” is a hoax; and the Paris climate agreement is nothing more than a $34 trillion wealth transfer.

Europe may be caught up in this madness, but the United States is not.

George Orwell foretold of this lunacy in his prescient Animal Farm, where the “Pigs” reigned supreme and were masters over—and subjugated—the other animals.

In another time, the proponents of man-made “global warming” would have been devout members of the “Flat Earth Society,” and claimed a consensus with respect to it too.


4 01 2018
Timothy D. Naegele



The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

A massive winter storm roared into the East Coast on Thursday, threatening to dump as much as 18 inches of snow from the Carolinas to Maine and unleashing hurricane-force winds and damaging flooding. Schools and offices were closed, and thousands of flights cancelled.

Forecasters expected the system to be followed immediately by a blast of face-stinging cold air that could break records in more than two dozen cities, with wind chills falling to minus 40 in some places this weekend.

Blizzard warnings and states of emergency were in wide effect, and wind gusts hit up to 76mph in some places. Eastern Massachusetts and most of Rhode Island braced for snow falling as fast as thre inches per hour.

The storm was powered by a rapid plunge in barometric pressure that some weather forecasters were referring to as bombogenesis or a ‘bomb cyclone’ and which brought fast, heavy snowfall and high winds.

Officials reported road accidents throughout the Northeast, including in Manchester, New Hampshire, where a 32-year-old woman crashed a vehicle through the wall of a nursing home. No one was injured in that incident.

Three people were killed in North Carolina after their vehicles ran off snow-covered roads, authorities said.

In New Jersey, Orlando Igmat’s car got stuck in a snowbank along the Garden State Parkway in Tinton Falls as he drove to work at Verizon. He waited a half hour for a tow truck to pull him out.

‘I didn’t expect it (the storm) was going to be a heavy one. That’s why I went to work today. I’m going to stay in a hotel tonight,’ he said.

The risk of power outages raised concerns about people going without heat. More than 100 warming centers were open in 34 towns across Connecticut, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

Schools were ordered closed in New York City, many parts of New Jersey, Boston and elsewhere throughout the region.

While kids stayed home, many parents still had to go into work.

Commuters who braved the storm in the morning worried that they could be stranded during the storm’s peak expected later in the day.

‘I don’t know where I’ll stay tonight if I get stuck, probably with my boss,’ said Ran Richardson, 55, of Malden, Massachusetts, as he waited for a Boston subway to take him to training for his job as a Chinese-English translator.

The National Weather Service received multiple reports of coastal flooding in Massachusetts that made roads impassable.

On Plum Island, Massachusetts, residents were evacuated when road connecting the island to Newburyport washed out. Residents were evacuated with a National Guard high-water vehicle.

Seawater was seen rising near buildings in downtown Boston and the suburb of Lynn. One video shows floodwaters carrying a car down the street in the Seaport neighborhood of Boston.

In the district, Joe Weatherly, a 40-year-old artist from Los Angeles, held his Boston terrier while searching for a seafood restaurant. Part of the district was flooded.

‘For someone in California, this is really, really scary. Mind blowing,’ he said. ‘We don’t live in a state where things shut down with the weather. I’ve just never seen this much snow in my life.’

Some 65,000 homes and businesses in the Northeast were without power, though that number was expected to rise as the storm intensified across the region.

More than 5,500 homes and businesses lost power Thursday morning in Provincetown, Massachusetts, on the outermost tip of Cape Cod, which was being lashed with hurricane-force wind gusts, the Eversource electric utility said. Much of that power was restored by early afternoon.

In Maine, the problem was a shortage of drivers to deliver heating fuel. Small independent fuel merchants in particular were overwhelmed by customers who do not have automatic refill service, the Portland Press Herald reported.

Linda Heuman and Amy Remensnyder were supposed to fly to Berlin on Thursday, but the flight was canceled. That left them stuck in their home in Providence, Rhode Island, with no food. So they trekked through the snow to a grocery store nearly a mile away.

Their plans for the rest of the day were simple: Make soup, do some desk work and maybe watch a movie with popcorn, Remensnyder said.

Schools, businesses and ferry services in parts of Atlantic Canada were also shut down. Nova Scotia Power said it had more than 1,000 people at the ready in its biggest-ever pre-storm mobilization of personnel and resources.

Wind gusts strong enough to topple trees and power lines were predicted in the Delmarva Peninsula, which includes parts of Delaware, Virginia and Maryland; coastal New Jersey; eastern Long Island, New York; and coastal eastern New England.

More than two-thirds of flights in and out of New York City and Boston airports were canceled. The flight-tracking site FlightAware reported more than 4,000 flights cancelled in and our of the U.S.

The conditions were so bad in New York City that all flights in and our of JFK and LaGuardia airports were suspended during the storm.

Rail service was affected too. Amtrak planned to operate a modified schedule between New York and Boston on Thursday. Northeast Regional Service between Washington, D.C., and Newport News/Norfolk, Virginia, was canceled for Thursday.

The storm shut down much of eastern Virginia, but some people took it in stride.

Mark Schoenenberger, a 45-year-old NASA engineer who lives in Norfolk, Virginia, put on his cross country skis so he could make a half hour trip to the bagel shop for some breakfast for his family.

‘It’s like ‘Yay, I get to go out,’ he said.

The only concern he seemed to have was telecommuting while his kids were home from school. But ‘it’s just noise,’ he said.

Waiting just behind the she storm was a wave of bracing cold.

National Weather Service Meteorologist Dan Peterson said record low temperatures were predicted for 28 major cities across New England, eastern New York and the mid-Atlantic states by dawn Sunday.

Many places in New England will be colder than Mars on Friday. Today, the high on the Red Planet is -11 degrees. In Mount Washington, New Hampshire tomorrow, temperatures will only reach a high of -16.

Boston expected a low around minus 11 overnight Saturday into Sunday. Portland, Maine, and Burlington, Vermont, could see minus 16 and 19, respectively, the weather service said.

State and local officials urged people to stay home so crews could clear streets and roads of snow. There were concerns in Boston and elsewhere that if roads were not properly cleared, they could freeze into cement-like ice after the cold blast arrives.

In other areas, plummeting temperatures had already caused water mains to burst. Jackson, Mississippi, was under a precautionary boil-water notice after pipes failed. Portable toilets were placed outside the state Capitol because some of the toilets would not flush.

The massive storm began two days ago in the Gulf of Mexico and first struck the Florida Panhandle.

It was so cold in South Florida that iguanas fell from their perches in trees in suburban Miami. The reptiles became immobile when temperatures dipped below 40 degrees Fahrenheit.

In Charleston, South Carolina, five inches of snow was enough for Chris Monoc’s sons, ages four and two, to go sledding.

‘They probably will be teenagers the next time something like this happens,’ Monoc said.

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5235431/Blizzard-roars-U-S-Northeast-snarling-travel.html (“The ‘bomb cyclone’ has detonated! Whiteout storm hits the Northeast with heavy snow and hurricane-force winds – closing schools and causing traffic chaos as plows run around-the-clock to clear roads and more than 4,000 flights are cancelled“) (emphasis added; charts, diagrams and videos omitted)

As discussed in the article above and the comments beneath it, the eco-Nazis (e.g., Al Gore)—also known as America’s detestable Left and far-Left—appear to be wrong with respect to seemingly everything.

See, e.g., http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/01/04/al-gore-bitter-cold-is-exactly-what-we-should-expect-from-the-climate-crisis/ (“Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis’”—”[A]s recently as 2009, Gore was hyping the lack of snow as evidence for man-made global warming. Other climate activists warned of less cold and snow as well”)

Algore and Global Warming


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: